Director: Dan Fogelman Writers: Dan Fogelman Stars: Oscar Isaac, Olivia Wilde, Annette Bening
Synopsis: As a young New York couple goes from college romance to marriage and the birth of their first child, the unexpected twists of their journey create reverberations that echo over continents and through lifetimes.
[/info]
Let me start by saying, before I get into reasons why I didn’t like this movie, know that I had hopes a couple of months ago about this film. When I saw the trailer, I thought it looked good and was interested in giving this movie a shot, even though the idea of taking a giant cast of characters and have them all connected by circumstances so dumb that you have to shut your brain off to even imagine it working. Then the reviews started to come out of Toronto and various critics I admire, thus leading me to worry that this film will not be good. Those reviews amounted to it being ranked as one of the worst films of the year. And after seeing Dan Fogelman’s Life Itself, and some days to think on it, I must agree with my peers and say that not only is Life Itself the worst movie of the year so far, but dare I say the most offensive film put to screen in recent memory.
Life Itself mostly follows two shallow, meaningless stories about two families, one in New York City and the other in Spain. The Dempsey family composed of Oscar Isaac, Oliva Wilde, Mandy Patinkin, Jean Smart, and later in the film, Olivia Cooke, are the unluckiest people on the planet and yet there is nothing that is really compelling about them. Isaac and Wilde meet in college and most of their story follows their dating life, their marriage, an event that changes everyone’s life, and then towards the tail end of their story, follows Cooke’s story, who plays their daughter. Everything in this section is an eye rolling, boring exercise in what to do when writing a screenplay. From Isaac’s depressing, creepy performance as Will, to Olivia Wilde’s character being nothing but a tool for Isaac’s character to exist, to the awful stuff about Wilde’s college thesis paper, which is a think piece for another day that I will not write make you read, to finally Cooke’s sluggish performance as the daughter that lost everything that no one feels sorry for. The only saving grace in this section is Patinkin and Annette Bening as Will’s psychiatrist but that’s not saying much because he is barely in this film, kind of like my interest in this film at this point of the movie.
The second part of this film follows family and their boss in Spain, played by Sergio Peris-Mencheta, Laia Costa, Alex Monner and Antonio Banderas. This section feels like a totally different movie, with some actual interest but confusion as to why it was in the film at all. It’s a basic story of Mencheta working for Banderas, moving his family in but not wanting to do anything but do his work for Banderas due to the nature of how Banderas got his money or something like that. But when a tragic event happens to Mencheta and his family, and Banderas comes to help, the film gives off so many weird tones that you don’t know what the hell it is trying to say about this situation. Costa’s performance is mostly good, but she is given the same treatment as Wilde’s character, in that their performances are only there to serve the men they are acting opposite in the scenes with. Banderas is really good here but it’s mostly Banderas being himself, so it’s not a far stretch of a performance. The other child performance from Alex Monner is okay, but he is not given much to do, again folks, this script sucks.
But even though the second part is better than the first, the thing that makes it terrible to is that all the big twists and turns in this story are reliant upon the abysmal first act, that you wonder what the point of the film is. By the end of the second section, you feel so cheap and dirty because you have been manipulated into this other story but can’t forget that this film is one of those movies that has to connect everything, so it ruins the best parts of it. Look I’m sure Dan Fogelman really poured his heart in soul into this project, and tried to turn lemon into whatever the hell this movie was supposed to be, but all that I felt by the end of this was that feeling of never wanting to see another thing written by him. Someone who can write terrible dialogue for Samuel L. Jackson (who is in one of the most baffling, offensive openings I’ve ever seen to a movie), make me feel like Pulp Fiction might be over rated, call a dog the worst name in cinema history, and ruin Bob Dylan, makes me question why NBC is giving him a job, and why he was ever given a shot to make this massive eye roll of a movie.
Coming soon is the British historical drama Peterloo, the latest from writer/director Mike Leigh. Leigh’s work features the aesthetic touch to social situations in contemporary Britain and real-life figures from history. Starting with televised plays, he’s built an impressive reputation for creating dynamic characters surrounding a certain narrative through improvisation rather than a normal screenplay. Historical and contemporary, Leigh goes to hit right on the emotional buttons on the vulnerable areas of society. Building up with a record up-and-coming actors who became known veterans like Alison Steadman (who he later married and then divorced), Timothy Spall, Jim Broadbent, Katlin Cartlidge, Lesley Sharp, Andy Serkis, and Lesley Manville. Here are my personal 5 favorite films by Mike Leigh.
Meantime (1984)
Set in the middle of a Thatcherist government where the middle class is hit hard, a family in London’s East End struggles with unemployment involving a couple and their two adult sons in punctuated roles by Phil Daniels and Tim Roth. They are bored and struggle with the growing dreariness of not being able to do anything but suffer through the realism that other middle-class citizens dealt with at the time. As seen with the rest of his work, Leigh goes back and forth with the couple, their sons, and other family members who are on the other end of life as well-off and in the suburbs. They are into the known and unknown, but mainly on the dole, unable to get out of a disaffected hole. Look out for Gary Oldman’s debut as a skinhead. After multiple successful television plays, Leigh’s Meantime brought him better prominence in continuing the kitchen sink genre from twenty years before.
Naked (1993)
David Thewlis played the intelligent, yet narcissistic homeless figure Johnny who tries to outsmart everyone he encounters on a lonely day in London. It is among the darkest pieces by Leigh as it goes into the underbelly of the London night where it is both sexual and violent, if not a mix as seen in the first scene. Johnny is crazy, openly verbally abusing others who try to cross his intelligence, especially women, but others are even worse than him. He keeps friendly with his ex-girlfriend and it’s her friend who becomes the victim of the psychopathic sadist landlord. It was controversial upon release because of the misogynistic tones throughout, especially within a heavily dark comic tone that can come from a Mike Leigh film. In a story of alienation, cynicism, and social hypocrisy, the characters have been stripped down to the true emotions they all bare.
Secrets And Lies (1996)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pbJKxjk3BQ
The Palme d’Or winning film about a secret family history revealed, namely a white woman who gave birth to a black girl and gave it up for adoption, is a very emotional movie about the surprises in life that quickly upend any individual regardless of background. Hortense (Jean-Marianne Baptiste), a well-educated optometrist, decides to search for her birth mother and is stunned to discover it is a white woman, Cynthia (Brenda Blethyn), who comes from a dysfunctional family which includes her rebellious daughter and her married son who is the calmer of the clan, but is internally frustrated with what the family is turning out to be. Baptiste and Blethyn’s performances move mountains and shatter the foundations of what a family really knows about their lives and peel off the layers of the ordinary persons when meeting such an encounter.
Vera Drake (2004)
Set in the 1950s, the film directly addresses the issue of abortion and the difficulty young middle-class women had with an unwanted pregnancy. The title character is a simple housewife, played perfectly by Imelda Staunton, who is the unsuspecting abortionist that has a routine while looking over his husband and adult children. Based on his own childhood, Leigh transplants a post-war rebuilt London to the screen where the surroundings are grey but the central figures are very warm. That is with the exception of two characters: one by Sally Hawkins as a woman who is impregnated through rape but can get an abortion after stating she may kill herself, and a second woman who survives a botched abortion by Drake, leading up to the dramatic arrest during a dinner party in the family’s flat.
Happy-Go-Lucky (2008)
I first noticed Sally Hawkins as the bubbly primary school teacher Poppy who is not affected by anything negative around her and instead always tries to be optimistic. After her bike is stolen, she decides to learn how to drive and comes face-to-face with the gloomy driving instructor. Instead of showing anger to a scene of bullying at school, she shows concern for the bully, to which Poppy discovers a sad fact regarding him. Even when some think she needs to mature up, Poppy goes on with her life and dates a nice man, a social worker. Poppy is someone who tries to make everyone happy, even though she is told in the end that she can’t, yet Poppy is not fazed. It is probably Mike Leigh’s most charming work because it does not go down the dark hole his other works have gone into.
Mike Leigh is about keeping it natural with every story and every performance, not trying to stuff a story too much in which regular scripts tend to do. There are those little moments where Leigh goes into that gives a humanistic style for the misfits and frustrated working classes. He is an auteur of the human expression which came from his initial stage background and makes the acting the ultimate nucleus of his great work rather than specific camerawork and editing and keeps it all fresh and original, nothing adapted. For Leigh, it is not the flash that makes him a standout film director, but the basics of human quality and simple stories of human life that he can paint on a film canvas.
Director: Paul Weitz Writers: Paul Weitz, Anthony Weintraub Stars: Julianne Moore, Christopher Lambert, Ken Watanabe
Synopsis: A world-renown opera singer becomes trapped in a hostage situation when she’s invited to perform for a wealthy industrialist in South America.
[/info]
When I was in junior high, my sister handed me a copy of Ann Patchett’s Bel Canto and asked me to read it. She told me I would like it, and she was right. I’m a sucker for hostage story lines, but the story went to such emotional depths and, by the end of the novel, it became something so much more than a simple hostage story. It’s been a long time since I was in junior high, so I admittedly don’t remember much about the book, but I’ve often thought about it and how much I enjoyed it and I wondered why it was never adapted into a movie. And after finally seeing the big screen take, I kind of get why we didn’t get a movie sooner – Bel Canto is a sprawling, drawn out, emotional story about several people overcoming interpersonal barriers due to politics, language, culture, morality, and the law, and that’s a lot to take on in one two-hour long movie.
I should be clear from the beginning: I liked this movie well enough and I don’t think it was a bad adaptation. I just feel that it could have pushed a little harder to get the overarching themes and emotions of the novel across. There were so many characters and the story takes place over a decent chunk of time and it all had to be condensed into a two-hour movie. This is a rare example of a movie where I think it either should have been 20 to 30 minutes longer to give all the characters and storylines time to breathe and become believable, or it should have cut out a few characters and kept the story a little more contained. The dialogue also could have used some extra attention and I would have liked to see the various examples of language barriers played out a little better, but I think it did a pretty good job with what it had, overall.
It also should be said that the weaknesses throughout the script were largely compensated by the phenomenal performances throughout, especially by the always-amazing Julianne Moore. The character of Roxanne Coss easily could have come across as stiff and borish, but Moore exudes charisma and confidence in just the right combinations to make the character interesting and enjoyable to watch, even when her character is written in an unfortunately unlikable way. The cast throughout also does a wonderful job of getting the emotions of the story across when the script, likely due to the two-hour time constraint, simply can’t.
My overall impression of Bel Canto can be summed up like this: If you have to read the book for a class or a book club but simply don’t have the time, this is a decent adaptation and, combined with the Spark Notes, will like get you where you need to go. If, however, you’re looking for something with the emotional depth of the novel, you’re not going to find it here. It’s a fine movie with a great cast that looks beautiful but it just doesn’t push the themes, character arcs, or emotional storylines nearly as far as they need to go for this story.
Director: Eli Roth Writers: Eric Kripke, John Bellairs Stars: Jack Black, Cate Blanchett, Owen Vaccaro
Synopsis: Recently orphaned Lewis Barnavelt must help his warlock uncle find and stop a clock that could bring about the end of the world.
[/info]
The House with the Clock in its Walls, both the original John Bellairs novel and the film, is meant to be an introduction to the horror genre for kids. I think it succeeds in this mission. It’s not too scary, but it does have enough of a spooky/ominous overtone to make it feel like a real horror film. The movie is written by Eric Kripke (creator of the Supernatural TV series), who has stated John Bellairs’ novel was one of his favorites growing up. Kripke even says he pulled inspiration from this book for Supernatural. The movie is apparently littered with references to the show- I caught a few of them, but I’ve only seen up to season 12 so there may be more.
The story centers around the recently orphaned Lewis Barnavelt (Owen Vaccaro) who is sent to live with his eccentric uncle Jonathan. Lewis is a smart kid with a love for words and his dictionary. His uncle Jonathan (Jack Black), lives in a large, creepy, old house that makes weird ticking noises at night and is filed with strange things. Lewis also meets his uncle’s neighbor and best friend Florence Zimmerman (Cate Blanchett), who spends most of her time at Jonathan’s house. Lewis soon learns that his new home is more than it seems and that his uncle and neighbor can do magic.
As far as the characters go, I really liked Jack Black in this. He’s usually hit or miss for me, but this role seemed to suit him and his character was one of the most developed. Cate Blanchett was amazing, as usual. She pulls off the quirky and mysterious Florence Zimmerman very well. You are given hints at her tragic backstory if you are paying attention. (Tip: keep an eye on her arms). The main protagonist Lewis, is portrayed by newcomer Owen Vaccaro. Vaccaro does a good job holding his own against the star power of Black and Blanchett. His character is relatable for kids his age and I felt for him and his struggles to fit in. Director Eli Roth has small cameo, so keep an eye out.
Warning to book fans; the movie is different. It’s hard to convert even a small children’s book into a two hour movie, but I think overall, the movie does the story justice. One positive note and fun fact is the same illustrator from the novel also contributed to the movie’s opening and closing credits.
Overall, this film felt a bit rushed. I wanted the movie to go into more detail about Florence’s past. She’s such a good character and we never learn a lot about her. I also wanted to know more about how magic works in this universe, and more time spent with Lewis learning magic from his uncle. These complaints are all typical for a book to movie adaptation. The major complaint I have is the villain. I don’t believe he was well defined and his portion of the movie was not enough to solidify his role as antagonist for me. There is also a scene during the third act of the film involving the antagonist and Jack Black’s character that kind of ruins the ending. I won’t give it away, but you WILL know when you see it. I haven’t finished the book so I’m not sure if it was pulled from there or if it was thrown in the movie for comedic relief. The point is, it was disturbing, bad CGI and because of it I can’t really remember what else was going on during the end of the film.
To wrap things up, I did enjoy this movies despite its faults. I think it was a good first attempt at a non-R rated movie for Eli Roth and I will definitely go finish the book (and its sequels) because I want to know more about these characters.
This week for our poll, inspired by Hold the Dark hitting Netflix this Friday, we are talking about Netflix movies. This has been a divisive topic over the course of the last few years, and for good reason. Netflix has had some great hits, such as the options listed in the poll below, but it also has many fails. Some of them massive fails. In many ways it seems Netflix is still trying to find their feet when it comes to the film game. However, this fall seems to be changing things. Netflix will release some major players in the next few weeks and months, including Hold the Dark, 22 July, The Other Side of the Wind and perhaps it’s biggest Ace yet in Roma.
So things could be changing for the better in the Netflix camp. For now though, what is the best Netflix film up to this point? Vote now!
This week on Episode 292 of the InSession Film Podcast, inspired by Mandy, we thought it would be fun to talk about Nicolas Cage’s best performances. Oh Cage, how we love thee. He has been an eccentric and fascinating actor for some time now, and while his prominence in mainstream Hollywood is stifled these days, the man is still working hard and often. And his performance in Mandy is a great reminder of how truly skilled he is as an actor and why we wanted to reflect on his best performances over the years. That said, here are our lists:
(Note: Please keep in mind that we each had different criteria for our selections)
Brendan:
1) Charlie Kaufman / Donald Kaufman – Adaptation
2) Roy Waller – Matchstick Men
3) Frank Pierce – Bringing Out the Dead
Jay:
1) Charlie Kaufman / Donald Kaufman – Adaptation
2) Terence McDonagh – Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
3) Sailor Ripley – Wild at Heart
Honorable Mentions (Combined)
Ben Sanderson – Leaving Las Vegas
H.I. McDunnough – Raising Arizona
Peter Loew – Vampire’s Kiss
Edward Malus – The Wicker Man
Castor Troy – Face/Off
Rick Santoro – Snake Eyes
Memphis Raines – Gone in Sixty Seconds
Big Daddy – Kick-Ass
Joe – Joe
Hopefully you guys enjoyed our lists and if you agree or disagree with us, let us know in the comment section below. As noted above, Cage has had a pretty notable career for various reasons and maybe we didn’t touch on some of your favorite Cage performances. That being said, what would be your Top 3? Leave a comment in the comment section or email us at [email protected].
Blowing in from Toronto (International Film Festival) for its U.S. premiere is a psychological and elemental chiller set in the frontier featuring Insidious: The Last Key’s Caitlin Gerard. And five more cast members. And a demon.
After The Wind, our writer Nguyen Le howled about it as a “detailed, absorbingly acted portrayal of loneliness as a disease and as a (wicked) cure.” (If you haven’t already, follow him on Twitter now for the latest at the fest!)
We also got the chance to talk with the director, Emma Tammi, about a variety of topics including the little tug-of-war with the environment during production and the project’s inception.
Director Emma Tammi in a post-screening Q&A with Fantastic Fest attendees. Photo credit: Arnold Wells.
Nguyen Le from InSession Film: First off, I’m always happy to hear whenever a film is at a festival and gets picked up by a distributor, and for your case it was IFC Midnight…
Emma Tammi (director): That’s right.
NL: Could you tell our readers more about the moment you knew?
ET: Sure. We premiered The Wind at TIFF, almost two weeks ago now so it’s really recent. I believed [Jonathan Sehring, co-president of IFC Films] saw it the day before the premiere — there was a press and industry screening — and responded very positively to it immediately. Our sales team then took over most of the negotiations so I can’t really speak to that, but I did have a chance to speak with the IFC team before we finalized the deal. You know, it’s really the dream to have a distributor who believes in the film so, so much… and they were incredibly enthusiastic about it, not just as a genre piece but also in terms of its others qualities and elements. They saw full-picture of what the film is and who it might connect with in terms of its audience in the U.S. They are handling the U.S. distribution.
NL: Awesome.
ET: We’re really excited to be working with them. IFC has such a great history of supporting really risk-taking voices and stories that maybe aren’t always mainstream but are some of the ones that over my life has been the most impactful as a moviegoer. I’m really honored to be a part of that legacy!
NL: Thanks to IFC, I knew about The Autopsy of Jane Doe.
ET: Oh, yeah!
NL: Congratulations again! Now, looking at your IMDb credits, this is the first time you helm a ship without a co-skipper, so to speak?
ET: Right! I have done some documentaries in the past as co-director. Which is so great, especially with documentaries you’re really finding the story as you shoot and again in post. Sometimes having more hands on deck in a way is helpful, so in terms of having a directing collaborator for those previous projects, it was wonderful. But in terms of narrative, this was my first, and yes, solo directing endeavor. It was just amazing! Obviously, collaboration is a part of the process as well, regardless whether you’re doing documentary or narrative, it’s totally integral, so that spirit of things was still in play throughout the whole process for me. But in terms of having the opportunity to work with actors, I think having a one-on-one… a person at the helm of the ship is really powerful. I felt really privileged and excited to be able to do it.
Lizzy Macklin (Caitlin Gerard) in ‘The Wind.’ Photo credit: A Hendricks (Divide Conquer)
NL: Is it because of your documentarian experience that made you fascinated with the world writer Teresa Sutherland had crafted? You mentioned in the post-screening Q&A that the film is based on true stories.
ET: Yeah! I think that drew me to it because there was a nugget of history there I found fascinating. And I thought the actual people [Teresa] based some of this on, their endurance level was just so incredibly high that I was really drawn to that. But, in general, I am really drawn to narratives that are inspired by or based on truth… That being said, we jumped way off the realm of reality at points in this film and that’s equally exciting to me. It’s a mix, yeah!
NL: From hearing these stories, what was the one aspect that made you say “I have to convey it in the film — somehow, some way”?
ET: Hmmm.
NL: We can go for many!
ET: Over and over again, the journals and the essays from women of this period and homesteading experience are accounted in such detail — the harshness, the bleakness of mundane things we really take for granted now, like getting water, dealing with a flu, these things that sometimes life-or-death back then are things we cope with fairly easily now. But the terrors of the land that would just blow in on sometimes a daily basis were incredible; it was fascinating to read those accounts because visually it painted a picture of what this landscape was at that time. And it was harsh, inhospitable. This was an area that people should not have been trying to live in! Everything was telling them to “Get out!”
NL: That’s right.
ET: And then they were there by themselves so in terms of the emotional accounts the throughline was “This is the loneliest experience on the planet.” In a way that was harsher than all the environmental harshness. Those two things, the environment and the emotional loneliness… And how powerful that is. We are as human beings meant to be with other people, even with all of us who enjoy our alone time…
NL: Social creatures!
ET: We are! To draw a very extreme comparison, solitary confinement is one of the quickest and most effective ways for someone to lose [their minds], based on all of these studies done; how long it’d take for people to go to a bad place after they have been placed there and it is so quick! Anyway, those were the elements that felt like, “OK, we’re making a fun horror film at the end of the day, but it’s also a drama about a woman going through very intense experiences” and we want to make sure those elements in the actual accounts were coming through.
With a title and cover like that, not sure if this is good reading material for prairie life. Photo credit: A Hendricks (Divide Conquer)
NL: And even though we have a demonic presence in the film, I adored the way you show it in an obscure manner. Was that always the vision?
ET: I think it was the initial instinct. We talked about it at length, obviously, before shooting and again in post when we were taking into the effects side of things. For me, the horror films that have moved me most throughout my life have been the stuff you don’t see, you anticipate. [They’re] the ones that have scared me the most, especially with films that are so much about the sound, the wind, the mind playing tricks on you — thinking that you’ve seen something but is it really there, the shadows in the corner of our eyes we can remember seeing/thinking we’re seeing as a kid. Or until now. We definitely want to root it in that space, which is subtler rather than showing the “it.”
NL: Right.
ET: Also, the demonic presence in this film is such an extension of the emotional state of the character that it’s a shape-shifter in a way, a reflection of themselves so it felt like leaning into the subtleties of the environment, which we really like — shadows, smoke, fire and wind — were really authentic to the world of the movie. And again, showing it, obscuring it rather.
NL: That reminds me a lot of The Babadook.
ET: Also distributed by IFC!
NL: There we go! Now that we’ve mentioned that film, which also has a powerhouse leading-actress performance, I remembered at the Q&A someone asked you about casting Caitlin Gerard for Lizzy already… I want to shift over to the process of casting for the character Emma Harper?
ET: It’s an interesting thing. In casting Lizzy, I think we were more open to… I was more open to what that character would be. But in casting Emma I really needed to find someone who was going to be whatever Lizzy wasn’t. The chemistry of what that actress was going to bring to the table was really important. When I spoke with Julia Goldani Telles, she moved me on several levels; I think she’s a phenomenal actress, her range is insane and has yet to be seen by the world. But her interest in the story, this character — both Emma and Lizzy actually — and again with true stories they were based on, was so insightful… and yet she’s a millennial and she has taste to it, you know what I mean?
NL: (remembers birthday) Yes!
ET: It’s really an interesting journey to travel to that period of time with her and trying to make that authentic, but in a way also very Julia that brought out all the love, hate and suspicion in Lizzy. Julia and Caitlin just had an amazing dynamic. We really lucked out with that because at the end of the day they weren’t in the same room together until we did a very quick reading before we went out to New Mexico, which was like a week before we started shooting. We can predict the chemistry, but can’t always nail it. But we nailed it. We lucked out. They were both just incredible to work with.
Lizzy Macklin (Caitlin Gerard) and Isaac Macklin (Ashley Zukerman) in ‘The Wind’. Photo credit: A Hendricks (Divide Conquer)
NL: Could you tell me about the characters’ backstory?
ET: Emma’s from the city and she’s really a city girl at heart, not prepared for life on the prairie. Lizzy has an immigrant background — she was originally from Germany, came over as a young girl, and there’ are some moments in the film where she actually starts to kind of speak in tongues and switches over to German. The immigrant backstory was really interesting to me and Teresa, the writer, because… We added it at the very last minute because Caitlin actually has some German background. She speaks German fluently, so we were able to incorporate that. But in terms of Lizzy’s isolation, the distance she experiences with her husband Isaac (Ashley Zukerman), and him trying to shut down some of her suspicions, which he roots in not only religion but maybe the folklore she embodied as this little girl in Germany and brought with her, we just thought it was very interesting to add an additional element of “outsiderness” that Lizzy would have been experiencing, to the isolation she feels overall.
NL: So we have two women who have seen a lot of the outside world suddenly confined on barren, dangerous grounds.
ET:(laughs) Right?!
NL: How was the shoot? Was it grueling? It looked serene!
ET: It was great! There were long days, so grueling in that respect for Caitlin. And she’s in every scene of the movie. She’s a total champ, like a marathoner throughout the shoot — all the credit to her. What was hard is toward the end it got really cold. We didn’t wrap shooting until November and those cabins…
NL: No heat?
ET: They were uninsulated. We were a night shoot, the temperature just dropped so significantly once the sun goes down and we had placed heaters up the wazoo and they just barely made a difference. It was grueling in terms of how cold it got at the end of the day; I came home with frostbite on my toes…
NL: Oh, no!
ET: I know. But actors were, you know, they were at the front of it. But the shoot was really a joy, a special period for everyone involved. We all believed in the project, really into working with each other — that made it less grueling.
Lizzy Macklin (Caitlin Gerard) in ‘The Wind.’ Photo credit: A Hendricks (Divide Conquer)
NL: In an age where everything is instantaneous, your film is a slow-burner. That’s always been the intention?
ET: It is. The dialogue is really sparse in the script. I think we wanted to embrace the more classic Western form — long takes, letting things breathe — and the slow burn of the horror element also would also have bigger payoff if we took our time. We wanted to embrace a pace that felt a little bit more accurate to that time. But you never know if that’s gonna land with an audience watching 30 seconds of YouTube videos that have 500 cuts, including myself! What do we have patience for now? But I think it’s an interesting time to try to push slowness and quietness and sitting with that. Hopefully we have done that in a compelling way, not the boring way. Yeah, we always felt like this is going to be a slow burn and we’re gonna take our time with some of the moments.
NL: Much like A Ghost Story and It Comes at Night! They found their audiences. I’m a big fan of both.
ET: Totally. Honored to be compared to either of those!
NL: What’s next on the horizon for you?
ET: I don’t know! We finished this so recently, and I’m so excited it’s getting out in the world. Starting to reach a bunch of scripts right now. Want to find the next thing really soon and get going.
NL: Something within the genre?
ET: Maybe. Anything! I’m really drawn to magical realism, whether that is in the horror space or not that would be a fun thing to dip into, whether it’s the next door or down the line.
NL: Gotcha. Did IFC let you know when they’re going to release this?
ET: We have not set a date yet, but it will be sometime in 2019.
NL: Thank you for your time! And thank you for bringing the film to us.
[divider]
[divider]
Stay with InSession Film for more about the film as well as other interviews and reviews from Fantastic Fest!
This week on the InSession Film Podcast, Jay Ledbetter fills in for JD as we discuss Mandy and our Top 3 Nicolas Cage performances. We also feature an interview with Joe Lipsett who covered the 2018 Toronto International Film Festival for us, and he gives us his thoughts on this year’s fest.
Big thanks to Jay for stepping up this week, he was absolutely wonderful and did a great job as co-host. You could hardly tell it was his first time on the Main Show. In addition to the above, we also had fun talking about the craziest Cage performances for our poll. And let’s be honest, those are always the fun performances we love to see from Cage. So needless to say, it was an enjoyable discussion.
On that note, check out this week’s show and let us know what you think in the comment section. Thanks for listening and for supporting the InSession Film Podcast!
– Movie Review: Mandy (5:23) Director: Panos Cosmatos Writer: Panos Cosmatos, Aaron Stewart-Ahn Stars: Nicolas Cage, Andrea Riseborough, Linus Roache
– Notes / Joe Lipsett Interview (33:52)
As mentioned above, JD was absent from his co-hosting duties this week, but he did manage to sit down with Joe for a few minutes to talk about this year’s TIFF and what it had to offer. After the interview, Brendan and Jay also give a few thought on the films to come out TIFF this year.
– Top 3 Nicolas Cage Performances (1:07:47)
Oh Nicolas Cage, how we love thee. Cage has been an eccentric and fascinating actor for some time now, and while his prominence in mainstream Hollywood is stifled these days, the man is still working hard and often. And his performance in Mandy is a great reminder of how truly skilled he is as an actor and why we wanted to reflect on his best performances over the years. That said, what would be your Top 3?
If you want to help support us, there are several ways you can help us and we’d absolutely appreciate it. Every penny goes directly back into supporting the show and we are truly honored and grateful. Thanks for your support and for listening to the InSession Film Podcast!
Having its world premiere at Fantastic Fest — at midnight, too! — is the spawn of The Handmaiden and Black Swan, only with the former’s Korea-Japan setting and latter’s competing ballerinas swapped out for U.S.A-China and dueling cellists. The ultra-insanity stays, though.
The Perfection, the latest, globe-trotting and character-driven drama from director Richard Shepard (The Matador, Dom Hemingway) and photographed by Crazy Rich Asians’ Vanja Cernjul, sees a former student of a famous musical conservatory, Charlotte (Girls’ Allison Williams), encountering pure darkness when she meets the establishment’s current favorite, Lizzie (Dear White People’s Logan Browning). Also in the film are NCIS: New Orleans’ Steven Weber and Smallville’s Alaina Huffman.
As our writer Nguyen Le has written in his post-screening reaction: “If you think you can guess where the madcap, sneaky & shock-your-socks-off THE PERFECTION is going, sit down.” (Also follow him on Twitter now for the latest at the fest!)
We got a chance to interview with Williams and Shepard, who stayed super-chill and prepared even if they didn’t get back to the hotel until 2:30 a.m. Warning: Mild spoilers and phrasing that enriches a swear jar are right ahead.
After the screening, the film’s talents stay for a Q&A session. Photo by: Heather Kennedy
Nguyen Le from InSession Film: Allison, your character Charlotte here undergoes many internal transformations not unlike Rose from Get Out. Do you find it easier or more difficult to execute them here after that film?
Allison Williams: I think I learnt a lot about how to do this very specific kind of thing with Get Out. Like when you watch The Perfection again, hopefully like Get Out the performance will stand up to scrutiny once you know everything. Hopefully, it will all ring true in some way. Unlike Get Out, Charlotte was acting only to Lizzie (Browning) so that she could get her to a desired end, which is similar, however, it wasn’t as fully in it and method-y. She wasn’t as good at it as Rose was. And so trying to peel that back and really just play someone’s truth and hoped that it looked the same no matter what the motive is… for example someone who’s worried about their friend who’s really sick and hungover and trying to figure out a way to fix it is also gonna look kinda similar to someone who thinks she needs to make that person cut her hand off and is trying to figure out how to achieve that. One of the benefits of the script is that those motives kinda line up a little bit so visually it presents a very similar performance.
Richard Shepard (director): And we wanted people to see the movie, if they saw it again that we really went out of our way to make sure that we weren’t bullshitting the first time — seeing different sorts of things and playing with the audience. Except for one specific thing, which I will not give away, when you see it again you’ll see that it’s exactly the same and it makes sense if you know what’s happening. There were a number of times in editing that we could have taken a shortcut if we have broken that rule, but we just didn’t want to. In a movie like this, if you [do] not like that, you deceive the audience a little bit. The movie comes out, you like it, and then it’s on TV, or Netflix, or whatever you’re watching, [and you can see] 10 minutes of it again, you know what I mean? You want people to go, “You know what, actually, fuck it, it’s working on this level.”
AW: And there were so many different stages of the movie where the audience knew different amounts of things about what’s going on, mostly nothing, but occasionally we would need the audience to trust someone and completely just trust someone else and then that would flip and then flip again and whatever, so that was something that we worked really, really closely on whereas there was just really one moment in Get Out where you just like, “There’s that seismic shift.” In this, it had to happen constantly. We spent literally months before we shot the movie kneading that out, especially since it was a quick shoot we knew there wasn’t gonna be a ton of time to have deep convos about…
RS: We did have a lot of deep convos before.
AW: We did, we had a ton of deep convos before! But yes, that was a lot of work. I hoped it paid off. The thing about the movie that I love is that you know Richard’s in control, you know that when you sit down, the person who made this movie is in control of it, you just have no idea where it’s going. It’s like a really good driver, and you just like are blindfolded or something, so you’re like, “All right, I’m just going on this ride.”
NL: Richard Shepard, filmmaker/bus driver.
RS: Exactly!
Director Richard Shepard and stars Allison Williams (as Charlotte) & Logan Browning (as Lizzie). Photo by: Jack Plunkett
NL: As for the Asian setting, was that chosen because there are possible parallels to be made to issues of shaming and perfectionism in the culture?
AW: Oh.
RS: That’s a great question.
(both): No.
AW: It was Mexico initially.
RS: And then we changed it to China. Because of the system in China and the idea of fighting authority is not necessarily something that people feel comfortable doing, I thought that would make sense for this story the people on the bus who were all really good people but they thought like they couldn’t sort of fight the driver from being such a dick and I thought that was important [side note: A pivotal scene in the film involves Lizzie feeling unwell and Charlotte unable to stop the bus due to language barrier]. Important to, actually, Allison, too. Like, the people on the bus were nice people–
AW: They were all acting the way we would act, probably.
RS: Giving water and helping. Meanwhile, the bus driver was like “I gotta get to this next stop.”
AW: I think it’s important. Originally, as scripted, it was in Mexico and I was shooting A Series of Unfortunate Events from January to May in Vancouver and I was literally in the process of signing that paperwork when Richard sent me the script. I was like, “Well, fuck! I mean, why?! Why not two weeks ago?” Then I said, “I don’t know, I’m gonna be in Vancouver for five months. Maybe there’s a way for me to shoot seven days a week.”—
RS: She really shot seven days a week. It was incredible.
AW: It was like split custody. [For Mondays and Tuesdays] I’d go to Lemony Snicket and then Wednesdays through Sundays go back to The Perfection. It was very whiplash-y. That’s why it moved to Vancouver and then trying to figure out what culture does Vancouver have that would also make sense as a home for the first part of this movie. We immediately thought of Shanghai just ‘cause it’s so visually evocative and, yeah, for the same thing Richard was talking about, whoever was on the bus needed to care more about the bus driver’s opinions of them, and just decorum in general, sort of bystander theory and stuff, than making sure this random — of course, throwing-up-and-being-super-loud couple of American girls — [are OK]. You know, behaving the ways Americans do when we travel. Classic behavior (laughs).
NL: Thank you! And before we go: Richard, do you have a dream distributor in mind for The Perfection? [side note: As of this writing, the film hasn’t found one.]
RS: Yes. But I’m not going to tell you (laughs).
[divider]
Stay with InSession Film for more about the film as well as other interviews and reviews from Fantastic Fest!
This week on the InSession Film Podcast: Extra Film segment, we discuss Paul Feig’s latest “comedy” in A Simple Favor starring Anna Kendrick and Blake Lively, as well as the western-comedy Damsel starring Robert Pattinson and Mia Wasikowska.
This time around, it is Ryan and Brendan holding down the fort, offering up just as much praise as they can muster for the greatness that is Anna Kendrick and Blake Lively. And while there was some disparity during their review of Damsel, the discussion was fun and insightful nonetheless (at least we feel that it was).
On that note, have fun with this week’s Extra Film segment and let us know what you think in the comment section below. Thanks for listening!
– Movie Review: A Simple Favor (11:11) Director: Paul Feig Writer: Jessica Sharzer, Darcey Bell (based upon the novel by) Stars: Anna Kendrick, Blake Lively, Henry Golding
– Movie Review: Damsel (33:43) Director: David Zellner, Nathan Zellner Writer: David Zellner, Nathan Zellner Stars: Robert Pattinson, Mia Washikowska, David Zellner
We try to make this the best movie podcast we possibly can and we hope you enjoy them. Subscribe today on iTunes, Spotfiy or Stitcher, and please leave us a review on iTunes. You can also find us on Soundcloud, PlayerFM and TuneIn Radio as well. We really appreciate all your support of the InSession Film Podcast.
To hear this Extra Film episode and everything else we do, download our apps on the Amazon Market for Android and the Podcast Box app on IOS devices. The mobile app covers all of our main shows, bonus podcast’s and everything else relating to the InSession Film Podcast. Thanks for your wonderful support and listening to our show. It means the world to us!
[divider]
Help Support The InSession Film Podcast
If you want to help support us, we would greatly appreciate it! For more info, CLICK HERE.
Director: David Gordon Green Writers: Jeff Fradley, Danny McBride, David Gordon Green; John Carpenter, Debra Hill (characters) Stars: Jamie Lee Curtis, Judy Greer, Andi Matichak, Will Patton, Virginia Gardner, Nick Castle
Synopsis: Laurie Strode comes to her final confrontation with Michael Myers, the masked figure who has haunted her since she narrowly escaped his killing spree on Halloween night four decades ago.
[/info]
“There’s nothing new to learn. No new insights, or discoveries,” Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis, as magnetic as the silver coating her hair) said to two podcas– investigative journalists, Dana and Adrian (Rhian Rees and Jefferson Hall, underused), seeking to know what makes Michael Myers (Nick Castle, reprising his role) tick. While it’s right to interpret the words as they are — a plea to not reopen traumatic scars — it’s also not wrong to see them as an eulogy for the sequels, II, III, 4, 5, Curse and H20. Maybe the two Rob Zombie films, too. Thank Heavens for the lack of a “vs.” entry. With the embargo on elaborations, Halloween walks with a freakish ability to rouse viewers with little effort, even if afterward, after so much cheering, there’s no sign of the chills one once felt when The Shape was first on the loose. To not tremble at the sight of a 6-foot-plus killer whose presence will get the air going ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-dingding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding? That’s new.
With a more pronounced fear factor, Halloween could have maximized another neat spice it has besides K.I.S.S-ing the timeline: How people’s mental alarms today will more likely ring for aliens, internet challenges, other nations, D.C. and so on than a masked assailant in the backyard. A tragedy, indeed, when this notion resides within Laurie’s two successors — daughter Karen (Judy Greer, sharp) and granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak, capable) — rendering all that time the elder Strode’s has spent training the former (with guns, sandbags and traps) and advising the latter (be vigilant or move to Mexico) as an unhealthy obsession, lasting warpings of childhoods. At least Allyson is always willing lend an ear, so there’s her survival odds being higher than most the moment Michael re-descends upon Haddonfield. Should be soon, though, since the bus transferring him to a maximum-security prison has crashed. Time to hide your kids, hide your lovers, hide your pets ‘cause the Boogeyman is slashing everybody out there.
Similar to announcing your location to a knife-wielder with a “Hello?” it’s a mistake to underestimate David Gordon Green’s ability to stage a set piece. The director of Pineapple Express and Stronger — hope there’s a hand under that jaw — shushes naysayers right away with Dana and Adrian attempting to interview Michael on the asylum’s garishly checkerboarded courtyard. The British duo don’t get much for their assignment, unsurprisingly, but our inner selves, on the other hand, will glee and howl in unison with the surrounding inmates as we take in Green’s tribute to the Old-Fashioned/the franchise’s acclaimed past in his direction; the camerawork from d.p. Michael Simmonds is serene and genre frequenter Tim Alverson wisely goes uncharacteristic with a calmer approach to the editing. What’s more, right as the scene reaches its peak, the film launches into the stratosphere when it cues a melody classical enough to resurrect a stage-left jack-o’-lantern (father-son John and Cody Carpenter & Daniel Davies handle the impressive score). If that isn’t an example of working the crowd, what is?
But in loving its spectators so much, Halloween forgets to rein in its destructive impulses the closer it gets to the 109-minute mark. The patient-yet-overwhelming menace in the early hours, in the opener and a long take that doesn’t waste its Oct. 31 holiday backdrop unlike The Predator, gives way to cuts that too often distort the sense of space and disrupt the setup. The Green-Jeff Fradley-Danny McBride script notably prioritizes the business of conjuring an entertaining time — through humor, callbacks and one switcheroo (that is here because…?) — than that but living up the sensations of the horror genre. The 1978 film is one writer short, and yet John Carpenter and Debra Hill does more. Righter. Still, it’s hard to deny that the laughs are effective (bless whoever authored that banh mi joke), the bloodletting does impress, and the final-hour confrontation brings forth the internal dynamics. Consider the possibility of being the only one in the auditorium with a frown, too. Nothing like peer pressure.
Still, Halloween comes from a good place, and for that it deserves respect. The film could have been an excellent continuation that also doubles as an equally so course-correction — it’s so close! — had its scarier edge been more sharpened and its timely wheels better spun. Ultimately, let’s not deny what we have, for at least Michael has an improved legacy now. Laurie’s, too. That’s an important lesson to take home with. It’s not as intensely highlighted, but no doubt the more crucial one.
Director: David Zellner, Nathan Zellner Writers: David Zellner, Nathan Zellner Stars: Robert Pattinson, Mia Wasikowska, David Zellner
Synopsis: It’s the Wild West, circa 1870. Samuel Alabaster, an affluent pioneer, ventures across the American frontier to marry the love of his life, Penelope. As his group traverses the west, the once-simple journey grows treacherous, blurring the lines between hero, villain and damsel.
[/info]
Expect the unexpected.
That’s a trite saying you might find on a greeting card of some kind, but in David and Nathan Zellner’s Damsel it becomes the prism through which everything is seen. Depending on your penchant for either optimism or pessimism, the unexpected may sound good or bad to you. Another way to put it is found in Murphy’s Law – whatever can happen, will.
The Wild West might just be the perfect stage for this kind of discussion, and the Zellners waste no time in showing us that fact. The opening scene pits a world-weary preacher (Robert Forster) up against an optimistic man headed west (played by David Zellner, himself). The younger man says he is headed west to put the difficulties of his life behind him. His wife died during childbirth. Yet here he is, wide-eyed and asking questions about the old man’s experiences in the great western lands. The old man responds with unsettling candor. “I hate to break it to you, but it ain’t gonna be no better out here.” The old man is headed back the other way. His preaching fell on deaf ears. By the end of the conversation, he has literally given up everything save for (some of) the clothes he’s wearing.
To say this scene has shades of No Country for Old Men is putting it lightly. The opening shots are clear shout-outs to that Coen Brothers Best Picture winner, and the theme of an older man throwing up his hands against the harshness of life isn’t hard to draw connections to either. And later in the movie, we even meet a character named Anton. Maybe the callbacks to my favorite movie of all time were part of the reason I was so enthralled by this opening scene. Certainly the acting plays its own part too. But the opener takes on new meaning when coupled with the rest of the film. As Damsel shows repeatedly throughout its 113-minute runtime, life has many unexpected turns in store for all of its characters.
From there, the film cuts to a town where a man named Samuel (Robert Pattinson) is looking for a parson. Pattinson has reached the level where I’m interested in a movie solely because of his involvement. He was fantastic in the Safdie Brothers’ 2017 release Good Time, and he is once again fantastic here. You no longer have to associate him with his teenage heartthrob beginnings in the Twilight series. He’s done too much good work since then for that.
Samuel is looking for a parson, though it is not until later that we learn why. It just so happens that Parson Henry is in town (this is the younger man from the opening scene to whom the old preacher gave his clothes). Samuel has sent a telegram to Parson Henry with details of a job. We don’t learn what these details are in fact, except that Samuel has agreed to pay Parson Henry $60 for his services. He docks the pay by $0.50 when he finds the Parson drunk and laying on the beach. Not exactly how one might expect to find a preacher.
At this point, I must pause to mention the film’s cinematography and costume design. Especially in these early scenes along the Pacific coastline, the visuals are strikingly beautiful. Later, the film’s visual eye will find similar flair in the wild countryside, but these opening scenes set the stage beautifully. The costume design stands out for its period detail, but also for other reasons of narrative importance. Already I’ve highlighted the importance of the preacher’s wardrobe, and that takes on even more significance as the film continues.
Even after the opening scene, it is impossible to escape the influence of the Coen Brothers on this film. It goes far deeper than the fact that this film is also made by a brother duo. There’s the black humor, the oddball characters with local accents, and the memorable fringe details (a perfect example in this film is the presence of a miniature horse named Butterscotch). It’s a daring risk to tread in the lofty territory of the Coen Brothers, but I think the Zellner Brothers show that they are more than up to the task. Since I am such a fan of the Coens, the way the Zellners wear that influence so clearly on their sleeves in the early going did pull me out of the film just a bit. Some of the early scenes are laugh-out-loud funny, but they don’t always serve the story. The Coens have perfected the use of this kind of black humor, because they always find ways to unearth it within the story. One scene in particular (a criminal being hanged outside the city) seemed like it was just thrown in to create an opportunity for this kind of gallows humor (pun intended). But, as the story continues, I think the Zellners settle into their own style and themes in a more satisfying way. The film continues to be funny, but the later scenes find the humor within this unexpected journey.
I’m not going to discuss much of the plot of the film once Samuel and Parson Henry leave the town for fear of spoiling the experience. Suffice it to say that the film goes all in on its theme of life bringing unexpected turns.
What I will mention is that Mia Wasikowska gives a fine performance as Penelope. By this point, you may have been wondering when I would ever get around to the reason for the film’s title. Well, that would be Penelope – the lost fiancé that Sam is seeking. Now you can connect the dots as to why he specifically needed a parson to come along with him. But what ensues from there I doubt you will expect.
This film will get you thinking about whether optimism or pessimism is the best outlook in face of life’s struggles. I tend to be an optimist, and that surely affects how I approach this film. I firmly believe that one should come to a film and accept what it has to give rather than trying to project your feelings onto it. At the same time, each person is different and will come to each film from different points of view. Finding the middle ground there is difficult when trying to analyze films, but I think it’s necessary work. This is why one person might look at the same film differently at various stages of life. We may be the same essence of ourselves as we age, but our various experiences certainly change us.
And maybe that’s just it – we change. People often say that “life goes on.” Maybe what this film is encouraging us to see is that life often brings us to unexpected turns. That will happen. Heroes can just as easily become villains, and damsels in distress may not need saving. But even amid these happenings that we cannot foresee, we can push forward. We can keep some small kernel of ourselves even though we may be forever changed in drastic ways.
How do we live in a world where movies like Predator and Peppermint are green lit?
Hollywood should be dedicating their time to promoting projects which celebrate our diverse world rather than pushing releases which perpetuate hurtful stereotypes. Instead of celebrating the strength of the female characters we’ve seen in 2018, we are forced to endure poorly written attempts and capturing previously found glory. If you enjoy stereotypes and trope ridden moments are what make you smile then look no further than these two films.
For example, in Predator, Director Shane Black cast Olivia Munn as Dr. Casey Bracket in what appears to be an attempt by Black to show a woman in an empowering role. It doesn’t take very long for audiences to see that she was cast to be the object of ridicule and nothing more. When Munn’s character isn’t being portrayed as the butt of the joke, she’s flaunted on screen in the most provocative way possible. There is a sequence in the film where Munn’s character is trying to escape the predator’s onslaught and gets caught in a decontamination unit and rather than have her sprint right through it; they have had her strip down which leads to the monster just walking by. What exactly does having her character strip serve towards advancing the plot? If this is supposed to be an action movie then why not have her kick the Predator’s ass? Was this just a misstep or precisely what Black had intended?
Then there is how they handle Rory.
Pretty early on in the film, they make it abundantly clear that he has ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) but rather than have some level of authenticity to the role, Black opted to “Hollywood” the neurological condition. So instead of having an example for kids to potentially look up to who have ASD, The Predator creates this false idea about the condition. We even find out that The Predator is interested in harvesting Rory (the boy with ASD) as he might be the next step in evolution (eye roll). Mix in a 1/4 of the movie rife with one-liners aimed at making light of the band of heroes who have some psychological issues and that we have a film that spends a great deal of time making fun of people with neurological and psychological problems. Is this the type of narratives we want to see coming out of Hollywood? If the idea was to create an action film intended to be an homage to the original Predator, then I’m all for it. However, if in our quest to recapture nostalgia we’ve decided it’s okay to demean women and make light of issues which are serious then count me out!
One positive that I can say about The Predator is at least they didn’t perpetuate any racial stereotypes like director Pierre Morel’s Peppermint.
Morel’s latest project constructs its storyline around these gross concepts and perpetuates a reality which is far-fetched at best. In Peppermint, 98% of the Hispanic characters are in some way associated with some form of crime. To make matters worse, every single female Hispanic character was either scantily clad or serving their man drinks (some with evidence of being beaten). What message does this send? Is this reflective of our world?
To make matters worse, he ends up casting Indian and Korean families as shop owners as shop owners. Did Morel feel that they weren’t capable of anything else? While there’s certainly a need to suspend disbelief when seeing these pictures, at what point do you try to do some semblance of the right thing?
This week for our poll, inspired by his new film Mandy, we are talking about the craziest Nicolas Cage performances. Cage has always been a unique actor, but his eccentricity is perhaps what makes him stand out the most. Whenever he goes “full Nic Cage” you know you’re in for a treat. There are several great contenders for this poll, but we want to ask you guys; what is the craziest Nic Cage performance?
Prior to the Spanish Civil War, General Francisco Franco had actually written a screenplay that was produced. In his story, it involves two brothers, one who supports the New Republic (1931-39) and one who opposes it and remains aligned with the exiled monarchy. Upon his victory in 1939, General Franco reinstalled the country’s rigid system that banished democracy and the liberalism it once had been advocating. This included the arts, literature, and the cinema, where the poet Federico Garcia Lorca was murdered and many others were jailed or fled into exile. Picasso went to France, Luis Bunuel (see below) went to Mexico, and others scattered around the rest of Europe or immigrated to the Americas.
During his time of a quasi-fascist rule, Franco censored anything that was not Spanish nor reflective of its values – Catholicism, nationalism, morality – and thus many stories were subject to censorship. Yet, the system born from within Franco’s rule allowed some expression in cinema to be made and gave way to great films that laid the foundation of Spain’s great industry of today. This was called the Francoist aesthetic as directors used complex metaphors and secret vocabulary to make a bold statement the censors could not catch. Here are three notable directors who worked within the rigid system of Spain’s censorship and produced outlandish, fantastic movies that reflected the mood and mocked the life the country was living under at the time.
Luis García-Berlanga
Berlanga was a master of satire in Spanish society, going around the mines laid out by the strict laws of the time. Welcome, Mr. Marshall (1952) is a reference to Spain’s reopening into Europe and a small village composed of a priest, the mayor, and its peasant population. Hearing that the Americans may be driving through town, the small village goes to ridiculous lengths to impress them. Berlanga established the stereotypical American culture and history known at the time for comic effect, but also criticism for the lack of exposure outside of Spain. In Placido (1961), the apt-named protagonist helps distribute baskets for a town’s Christmas drive while struggling to get a mortgage payment in time. In his panic, Placido finds himself caught in bizarre situations while exposing the more wealthy to donate to the poor out of “charity” than actually be helpful. Berlanga made a more direct criticism in The Executioner (1963) about capital punishment surrounding an undertaker who marries an executioner’s daughter and becomes an executioner like his father-in-law in order to keep their apartment given by the government. Filled with gallows humor, it is a satire of the state’s use of the garrote and references the excruciation a person faces in marriage and in doing such a job.
Juan Antonio Bardem
Bardem was a communist who stayed in Spain and installed social realism against the conservative backdrop of Spain. The Happy Couple (1951) tells about a husband who loses their whole savings after being swindled by a business partner; they rely on faith and hard work to survive, even though it is clear the hard labor post-war won’t them any good for their age. Death Of A Cyclist (1955) told the story of a wealthy socialite and a university professor who have an affair and accidentally kill a passing bicyclist. They cannot get help because there would be questions about why the two are together and becomes a battle of consciousness over their actions. Main Street (1956) questioned the tradition of marriage as a thirty-something woman, unmarried, must consider themselves single for life. As a way to “punish” her for not going out, a group of people tries to trick her into falling for a man but only for him to leave her; the man realizes the cruelty of this but finds himself trapped and unable to leave. Bardem, by recognizing his surname, is an uncle of actor Javier Bardem.
Luis Bunuel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4hTSjfh7Y0
Next to Pedro Almodovar as the most recognizable Spanish film director in history, the atheist Bunuel returned to his native country and produced two scandalous works in defiance of Franco’s government. Viridiana (1961) is about a virgin woman who is about to take her vows as a nun when she visits her uncle. He and his beggar friends confront her with desire, even lying to her that they had raped her in order for her to stay because she is no longer a virgin. Thanks to blasphemous images that parodied The Last Supper and remarks that upended the Catholic Church, it was banned in Spain but did not prevent it from winning the Palme d’Or. Bunuel got a second chance in 1970 with Tristana, the story of a man who falls in love with a girl he had adopted as a daughter, but she seeks out to become independent when falling for a man her age. Lust by older men on younger women and the hypocrisy of the church are central themes and it gives a middle finger to the conservative values of the Franco regime.
Other Notables
Later films in the early 70s included The Spirit of the Beehive, a moving tale about Frankenstein and how a child saw things back then, and Pim, pam, pum… ¡fuego! which gave a more open look at the realities of the Spanish Civil War without direct attention to the government. Pascual Duarte (1976) was made prior to the fall of the dictatorship but portrayed the difficulties of life in the country as the title-character awaits death by guillotine. While The Executioner features a funny shot of the leading figure also being carried inside to do his job of killing a person, Duarte concludes with a graphic shot of the character dying slowly, strangled to a long, painful death, such as many in Spain felt once Franco took over.
As Spain slowly opened up culturally to the world, the censorship of Franco began to loosen and was removed when he died in 1975. In transitioning to a democracy, Spanish cinema opened itself to a progressive movement of storytelling that was forbidden for 36 years prior and let open the likes of Carlos Suara, Victor Erice, and, most notably, Pedro Almodovar. The Franco-era works are as essential and influential as democratic, modern Spain for its creation of social criticism within a comic context or melodrama. Some works were caught by the Francoist regime, cut, and banned temporarily, while others sunk through the cracks and have outlived the hand of repression that held a country down for most of the twentieth century.
This week on Episode 291 of the InSession Film Podcast, inspired by The Predator, we discussed our favorite sci-fi films from the great ole decade of the 1980’s. Not only are there some great sci-fi movies from that era, several of them are considered to be among the best films of all-time. So, this topic was arguably the most challenging we’ve done all year. How does one choose between The Empire Strikes Back, E.T., Blade Runner, Terminator, Aliens, Back to the Future and The Road Warrior? Or The Thing? The Abyss? Hell, even the original Predator? Man, there was some great sci-fi from that decade. That said, here are our lists:
(Note: Please keep in mind that we each had different criteria for our selections)
JD:
1) The Thing
2) Brazil
3) Predator
Brendan:
1) The Thing
2) Akira
3) The Abyss
Honorable Mentions (Combined) Terminator, Aliens, Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior, Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, E.T., Blade Runner, Back to the Future, Videodrome, Scanners The Fly, They Live, Ghostbusters, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Escape from New York, RoboCop, Cocoon, Tron, Flash Gordon, Spaceballs, Re-Animator, Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, Short Circuit
Hopefully you guys enjoyed our lists and if you agree or disagree with us, let us know in the comment section below. As noted above, the 1980’s may have been *the* seminal decade for great sci-fi, and there might have been some great films we missed out on. That being said, what would be your Top 3? Leave a comment in the comment section or email us at [email protected].
Director: Yann Demange Writers: Andy Weiss, Logan Miller Stars: Matthew McConaughey, Richie Merritt, Bel Powley
Synopsis: The story of teenager Richard Wershe Jr., who became an undercover informant for the FBI during the 1980s and was ultimately arrested for drug-trafficking and sentenced to life in prison.
[/info]
There is potential.
There is realized potential.
Then there is A Failure To Launch.
The irony is the actor who co-starred with Sarah Jessica Parker in the aforementioned 2006 film is one of the biggest ailments afflicting the success of White Boy Rick (in theaters now). While Matthew McConaughey might be the biggest star in this cast, his inability to allow others in the cast to shine impeded the overall quality of the piece. One would have thought the Oscar winner was playing the title role based on any number of clips Lionsgate publicity made use of in the trailer.
If the idea of the film is to tell the rise of the biggest narcotics trafficker in the history of Detroit then do just that and back away from focusing so much on his father. Screenwriters Andy Weiss and Logan Miller are so enamored with filling in all this exposition that they neglect providing any development for Ricky (played by Richie Merrit). Why provide a cursory look at a figure who is for lack of a better way to describe him fascinating? White Boy Rick is just one wasted moment after another culminating in a rush third act which seeks to immortalize this man.
Director Yann Demange’s latest project is irregularly paced and never truly achieves the type of focus needed for this tale to be effective. Some moments are incredibly slow and tedious (how many times do we actually need to be at the skating rink) while others are incredibly rushed bordering on a blur. There happen to be some noteworthy performances which are overshadowed by a menagerie of missteps. Bel Powley portrays Ricky’s sister Dawn and her mixture of guilt and addiction is devastating on screen. Merrit is solid as well but is overshadowed throughout the film by McConaughey’s over the top performance. Had there been any semblance of a consistent balance between the cast and source material, White Boy Rick would have been a better film overall.
Max Richter’s score didn’t inspire any confidence in this tale. Tat Radcliffe’s cinematography didn’t do the film any favors by making use of a dreary color palette. Radcliffe’s decisions were perplexing at times. Why wasn’t more of an effort made to show how destitute the city was? White Boy Rick at times is a mess and those fleeting moments where the narrative progresses, elicit little reaction from the audience.
What they should have done is recast the role of Rick’s father. Having the Oscar winner in this role is a disservice to the rest of the cast. Secondly, Lionsgate should have retooled the film with a focus on the evolution of Rick. What drives a child to want to become the biggest drug kingpin in Detroit? Was it the families socioeconomic status? From that launching point, you could have had one hell of a movie.
Overall, there are so many options at the box-office which would allow anyone to avoid subjecting themselves to White Boy Rick. However, if anyone reading this has some burning desire to see this then just watch the trailer as most of what works is in it and that’s never a good sign.
This week on the InSession Film Podcast, we discuss Shane Black’s The Predator and our Top 3 1980’s sci-fi movies! We also give a few brief thoughts on Support the Girls, The Wife and Operation Finale. And most importantly, we finally settle the debate as to who would win; a Predator or a Xenomorph.
Despite the quality of The Predator, we had a lot of fun with this show. As awards season approaches and ramps up, it’s refreshing to have shows where we sit back, relax a little bit and enjoy talking about sci-fi movies from the 80’s. At least that was the goal, and we hope you bask in fun as we did.
On that note, check out this week’s show and let us know what you think in the comment section. Thanks for listening and for supporting the InSession Film Podcast!
– Movie Review: The Predator (10:10) Director: Shane Black Writer: Fred Dekker, Shane Black Stars: Boyd Holbrook, Trevante Rhodes, Jacob Tremblay, Keegan-Michael Key, Olivia Munn
– Notes / Support the Girls / The Wife (45:47)
As mentioned above, since we – JD & Brendan – missed Extra Film this last week, we decided to offer our thoughts on Support the Girls and The Wife. JD also offers a few thoughts on Oscar Isaac in Operation Finale and also the Australian film Sweet Country.
– Top 3 80’s Sci-fi Movies (1:07:19)
Not only are there some great sci-fi movies from the 1980’s, several of them are considered to be among the best films of all-time. So, this topic was arguably the most challenging we’ve done all year. How does one choose between The Empire Strikes Back, E.T., Blade Runner, Terminator, Aliens, Back to the Future and The Road Warrior? Or The Thing? The Abyss? Hell, even the original Predator? Man, there was some great sci-fi from that decade. That said, what would be your Top 3?
If you want to help support us, there are several ways you can help us and we’d absolutely appreciate it. Every penny goes directly back into supporting the show and we are truly honored and grateful. Thanks for your support and for listening to the InSession Film Podcast!
We’re now on the cusp of the last weekend of the Toronto International Film Festival and the films are beginning to run out (or is that my patience with people who simply won’t turn off their phones during screenings?) Regardless, we’ve got more movies to discuss!
As the Toronto International Film Festival heads into its second week, the vast majority of critics have begun heading home, but there’s still plenty of films left to review!
Destroyer
Director: Karyn Kusama Writers: Phil Hay & Matt Manfredi Stars: Nicole Kidman, Scoot McNairy, Toby Kebbell, Tatiana Maslany, Sebastian Stan
Synopsis: A police detective reconnects with people from an undercover assignment in her distant past in order to make peace.
[/info]
In the last few years, Karyn Kusama has become one of my favourite American directors. Jennifer’s Body is an underrated piece of genre filmmaking that has only recently been reclaimed by the horror community and The Invitation is one of the best slow-burn thrillers of the last decade. Needless to say, there’s a certain amount of expectation going into her latest, a neo-noir crime film with a prestigious cast, including lead actress Nicole Kidman.
Destroyer has received mixed reviews from other critics at the festival, so I guess that I am an outlier because I really enjoyed it. Kidman’s turn as Erin Bell is rightfully being praised, but there’s more to the film than just its notable lead performance.
Like a lot of noirs, Destroyer uses an open murder as its opening salvo. Here Detective Bell wakes up in her car following a bender and stumbles onto an active crime scene involving a dead man, a very distinct neck tattoo and a handful of ink-dyed hundred dollar bills. Erin immediately connects the murder to a traumatic event 16 years earlier when she went undercover with a partner (Sebastian Stan) to shut down a violent crime ring.
The flashbacks are scattered liberally throughout the film and generate a surprising amount of tension despite our awareness of the outcome, which is explicitly declared up front. One noteworthy component of the flashbacks is the makeup effects, which are so effective that the change in Erin’s appearance (young and vibrant in the past; old and hard-bitten in the present) are alarming. Kusama regularly films Kidman’s face in close-up to emphasize the wear and tear the years have taken.
As Erin, Kidman delivers one of her best performances ever. The Oscar-winning Australian actress completely disappears into the role of a hard-bitten police detective suffering from trauma and alcoholism. Regardless of the fact that this is a well worn character type, Kidman finds nuance and depth in a woman whose personal life and career have been completely derailed. Interestingly Erin isn’t remotely sympathetic; she’s self-destructive and entirely focused on catching lead villain Silas (Toby Kebbell) – using any and all means to advance her cause, regardless of whose life she fucks up en route including her ex husband (Scoot McNairy) and rebellious teenage daughter.
Destroyer features two significant action sequences – both of them bank heists. The first, set in the present, is the more spectacular of the two and features a great supporting turn by Orphan Black standout Tatiana Maslany as Petra, Silas’ girlfriend. The way that Kusama shoots the robbery and subsequent chase is masterful and exciting. The second, set in the past, utilizes security camera footage and the audience’s knowledge, which reinforces the tragedy and inevitability of events to come. It’s not as exciting, but by the time this fateful heist unfurls in the film, that’s no longer the point.
One detractor to the film, and the most oft-cited opinion from critics who didn’t care for it, is the long run time. At a certain point it seems as though Destroyer should be ramping up towards its dramatic climax, but the pacing lags. There are too many one-on-one character discussions to sustain the momentum, which saps the ending of a great deal of its energy. All in all this didn’t bother me as much as it did others, however, if only because the film is so engrossing.
Grade: B+
[divider]
Can You Ever Forgive Me?
Director: Marielle Heller Writers: Nicole Holofcener & Jeff Whitty Stars: Melissa McCarthy, Richard E. Grant
Synopsis: Celebrity biographer Lee Israel makes her living profiling the likes of Katharine Hepburn, Tallulah Bankhead, Estee Lauder and journalist Dorothy Kilgallen. When Lee is no longer able to get published because she has fallen out of step with current tastes, she turns her art form to deception, abetted by her loyal friend Jack.
[/info]
There’s a standard formula to biopics, which often center around exceptional people overcoming adversity, challenges and obstacles. The structure of Marielle Heller’s new film adheres to this format, but in this case the exceptional person is actually terrible and the challenge involves passing off forgeries without getting caught.
Based on the bestselling memoir of the same name, Can You Ever Forgive Me? is the story of talented writer Lee Israel (Melissa McCarthy) and the desperate lengths she goes to in order to avoid financial ruin. The film opens with a simple but clever scene where she is fired for talking back and drinking at work, which establishes Lee’s prickly social skills, her problematic drinking habit and her money problems all at once. In quick order it becomes clear that Lee is in significant trouble: she is months behind on rent, her agent is dodging her calls, and her only companion – a lethargic house cat – has fallen ill.
She needs a lifeboat and fast.
The answer to her problems literally falls into her hands when she’s at the library researching a new biopic. Hidden in a book, Lee finds two original letters, one of which she sells to a bookstore for a handsome sum. While negotiating the sale, Lee learns that the more unique, personal or sensational a letter is, the greater the sum collectors will pay. With a few embellishments, she alters her remaining letter and the return is enough to put her back on financial track. From there Lee begins to craft her own letters, becoming increasingly skilled at forgeries through the use of various typewriters, papers and manipulative selling tactics.
Can You Ever Forgive Me? has garnered a fair amount of buzz for McCarthy’s performance and the hype proves to be justified. In Lee, McCarthy has a role that allows her a rare opportunity to demonstrate her dramatic chops and the actress knocks it out of the park. Lee is defiantly anti-social, narcissistic and full of disdain for things (and people) she deems unworthy of her time. McCarthy manages to both embody these characteristics without disguising the fact that Lee is wounded and still vulnerable.
The film makes it clear that Israel, who passed away in real life a few years ago, is incredibly talented, but her passions don’t align with popular taste so her ideas, her sex and her opinions are rendered invalid. There’s a great gag about prolific populist author Tom Clancy (who briefly appears at a party) that cuts to the heart of the issue: he schmoozes, he’s “likeable” and he has a recognizable name. Lee, by contrast, has none of these things. This is a subtle inference that this is not a world that is kind to people (female, lesbian, overweight) like Lee.
Thankfully the film isn’t a grim, dour slog. In fact, it’s just the opposite: it’s quite funny. A significant portion of the humour comes from McCarthy’s biting one-liners and takedowns, but the comedy is also attributable to Lee’s banter with fellow drunk hustler, Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant). As an aging queen with a fondness for theatrics, Grant is simply fabulous – in every sense of the word. The banter between Jack and Lee is hilarious and he helps to soften and give Lee depth. Narratively Jack also becomes her confidant, and eventual partner in crime as the stakes rise and the net begins to tighten around them.
In addition to the strong performances and witty dialogue, Can You Ever Forgive Me? also has a great sense of pacing. The nearly 1hr 50 min run time really zips along thanks to energetic directing and editing and a well-crafted screenplay by Nicole Holofcener and Jeff Whitty. There’s a strong chance that if the Academy can overlook its bias towards comedies, the film could be an awards contender.
Synopsis: A case of mistaken identity leads to a virtual romance, but will he still like her when he finds out who she really is?
[/info]
Netflix has been cranking out movies and TV series lately, some are good, some not so much. But it seems like they’ve been steadily improving production quality and attracting bigger star power. Sierra Burgess Is a Loser is one of their latest attempt at another rom-com.
The gist of the story is: Sierra (Shannon Purser) is an outcast at school, bullied by Veronica (Kristine Froseth) the head cheerleader. She’s called a loser, fat, a mouth breather and variety of other things from the standard high school bully repertoire. While out with friends, Veronica is approached by teen heartthrob and rival high school quarterback Jamey (Noah Centineo). Veronica deems him unworthy because she thinks he has loser friends, and gives him Sierra’s phone number instead of her own. This leads to a virtual romance between Sierra and Jamey that feels a lot like catfishing.
One of the things I didn’t like in the movie was how we were expected to read the texts between Sierra and Jamey off of their phones. In some scenes they were almost impossible to see and only stayed on screen for a few seconds. Other films have done things like display the text in a larger font across the screen or as subtitles. I think if they had gone in that direction, we would have had a chance to better connect with the characters and maybe understand how they fell for each other.
There’s also a lot of questionable things that happen in the movie. For example Jamey’s little brother, Ty, is deaf and is played by deaf actor Cochise Zornoza. His role in the movie seems like an attempt to check off a list of diversity requirements, rather than add anything of purpose. There was hardly any signing and they don’t really develop that sibling relationship. Other characters make jokes and fake being deaf, and it was a tad awkward. The way the girls lied to Jamey and lead him on was also uncomfortable. There’s a scene where Jamey believes he is kissing one girl, but he has his eyes closed and the girls swap places and then switch back before he opens his eyes. It’s a moment that felt disingenuous and a little mean-spirited.
The movie did have its good parts though. The acting was decent, there’s a Lea Thompson cameo, and it had some relatable qualities with its themes. Dan, the quirky best friend (RJ Cyler), added some great levity to the film. “Hey, where are the Sour Patch parents?” was one of his better lines. As far as supporting roles go, he may be the best one in the film. The English teacher was also great (Loretta Devine). The leading man, Noah Centineo, is currently in at least three Netflix movies playing pretty much the same character, so I guess “teen heartthrob” suits him.
Overall, I really didn’t like the plot of the movie. The lying to Jamey, the mean girl shenanigans, the fat shaming, and how easily all is forgiven didn’t sit well with me. It wasn’t awful, but I have no interest in watching Sierra Burgess Is a Loser again.
![Interview: Making ‘The Wind’ with director Emma Tammi [Fantastic Fest]](https://insessionfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Wind_Hi-768x384.jpg "Interview: Making ‘The Wind’ with director Emma Tammi [Fantastic Fest]")
![Interview: Filming ‘The Perfection’ with Allison Williams & Richard Shepard [Fantastic Fest]](https://insessionfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/perfection_xlg-768x617.jpg "Interview: Filming ‘The Perfection’ with Allison Williams & Richard Shepard [Fantastic Fest]")
![Movie Review: ‘Halloween’ stumbles by caring more for crowd than itself [Fantastic Fest]](https://insessionfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/halloween_xlg-768x414.jpg "Movie Review: ‘Halloween’ stumbles by caring more for crowd than itself [Fantastic Fest]")
